Air India Boeing Safety Audit: PIL filed to suspend Air India's Boeing fleet amid safety concerns, ET Infra
Advt
A Supreme Court lawyer has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the interim suspension of Air India's Boeing fleet until a comprehensive safety audit is completed, citing the June 12 Ahmedabad crash that killed nearly 270 people.The petitioner, Ajay Bansal, who recently flew on an Air India flight from Delhi to Chicago, has urged the top court to ground the airline's Boeing aircraft for two weeks, during which a full audit of engines, airframes and onboard equipment should be conducted.He has also called for surprise safety audits across all commercial airlines operating in India, and sought immediate intervention by the Centre, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) and Air India to ensure stricter regulatory oversight.Bansal flagged service failures including defective seats and in-flight entertainment services in his Delhi-Chicago flight on May 20, saying they are symptomatic of larger systemic issues plaguing Air India's fleet."Air India's service and safety failures jeopardise passenger lives and comfort, contravene DGCA safety audits, and breach statutory duties under Section 5 and 7 of the Aircraft Act 1934," the PIL stated."This is not an isolated tragedy, but the consequence of chronic neglect, regulatory laxity, and an airline culture that has prioritised operational expediency over passenger safety," the lawyer said.The petition also made references to reports by whistleblower accounts against Boeing and its manufacturing practices.Last week, after a meeting held with the senior officials of Air India and Air India Express, the DGCA had said the Tata group-run carrier's Boeing 787 fleet did not show any major safety concerns and the systems were compliant with existing safety standards. The meeting was held to review their operations to ensure compliance with safety and passenger service regulations.All but one of those on board Air India's Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner flight bound for London Gatwick that crashed shortly after take-off in Ahmedabad on 12 June died. There were 242 passengers and crew on the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Service in Op Sindoor offers no immunity; SC asks commando to surrender
The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied exemption to a man, who worked as a Black Cat Commando for 20 years and had served in Indian Army's 'Operation Sindoor', accused of killing his wife 20 years ago, and asked him to surrender. According to a LiveLaw report, the accused was convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) over 20 years ago. A two-judge bench was hearing a special leave petition filed against an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had dismissed the appeal and upheld his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The petitioner had also applied to the Supreme Court, seeking exemption from surrendering till the pendency of the proceedings before the apex court, the report mentioned. After the bench declined exemption to the petitioner, his counsel told the court, 'I can only leave with one line, I am a participant in Operation Sindoor. For the past 20 years, I have been a Black Cat Commando posted to my lord in Rashtriya Rifles.' The bench, unmoved by his counsel's remark, told the petitioner, 'That doesn't give you immunity from committing atrocity at home. This goes to show how physically fit you are, and how alone you could have killed your wife, strangulated your wife.' Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, one of the two judges hearing the plea, highlighted that the petitioner has been convicted of a serious offence. He said, 'This is not a case for exemption. It's a gruesome manner, the manner in which you strangled your wife. Exemption is for when the sentence is of six months, three months, or one year.' Background of the case In July 2004, a trial court in Amritsar convicted Baljinder Singh under Section 304-B of IPC for the death of his wife. The couple had been married for two years. According to the prosecution, the deceased was harassed and was subjected to cruelty in her husband's home for dowry. Eyewitnesses, who included the deceased's brother and his wife, in their complaint stated that when they entered their sister's matrimonial home on July 18, 2002, her husband (petitioner) and his father were strangulating her with a dupatta, while her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law held her arms and legs. The petitioner's counsel argued in the Supreme Court that the only allegation was the demand for a motorcycle, adding that the statements were made by two witnesses, who were closely related to the deceased. The bench granted the petitioner two weeks to surrender, and added, 'We decline the prayer for exemption from surrendering. Issue notice on the SLP returnable in six weeks.'
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Travesty of justice': SC summons Ghaziabad jailer over non-release of prisoner despite bail order
The Supreme Court Tuesday expressed serious displeasure over the fact that an accused, whom it had granted bail almost two months ago, has still not been released from the Ghaziabad district jail, allegedly because the order did not mention the sub-clause of the provision under which he was charged. A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N K Singh directed the superintendent jailer of Ghaziabad district prison to appear in person, and the Uttar Pradesh director general of police (Prisons) to appear before it through video conferencing to ascertain what exactly happened. 'Don't take the Supreme Court for granted,' said Justice Viswanathan. Justice Viswanathan also cautioned the petitioner that it will take action against him if it finds that the non-release was due to some other reason, like detention in another case and not due to non-addition of sub-clause as claimed by him. Justice Viswanathan also warned that the court will initiate contempt proceedings against authorities if the petitioner's claim is found to be true. In its order, the court said, 'This case presents a very unfortunate scenario.' The petitioner, the bench said, was released on bail by its order dated April 29, 2025. 'The order is categoric and states that the petitioner shall be released on bail during the pendency of trial' in the concerned FIR registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UP Prohibition Of Unlawful Conversion Of Religion Act, 2021, on terms and conditions as may be be fixed by the trial court. 'After this order, the Additional District and Sessions Judge…Ghaziabad, issued a release order to the Superintendent, Ghaziabad district jail, authorising and requiring the Superintendent to release the accused forthwith from custody after furnishing a bail bond unless he is required in connection with some other case,' the order said. 'After this order, it is stated by the petitioner that he is unable to secure his liberty because, in the order of the High Court and this court, clause (1) of Section 5 of the 2021 Act was omitted, and because of that petitioner could not be released. So contending, petitioner now seeks modification of the April 29, 2025 order, to specifically include Clause (1) of Section 5'. The bench said the 'concerned sections are clearly mentioned' in its April 29 order. 'It's a travesty of justice that on the ground that the sub-section was not mentioned, the petitioner who was ordered to be released, is to date kept behind bars. This calls for a serious inquiry. We direct Superintendent Jailer, District Jail, Ghaziabad, to be personally present tomorrow. Also, DGP Prison will appear on video,' the bench added.
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Participating in Op Sindoor does grant immunity to commit atrocity at home': SC denies relief to Black Cat Commando accused of killing wife
The Supreme Court Tuesday told a man convicted of killing his wife over dowry, who while seeking exemption from surrendering claimed to have participated in Operation Sindoor, that being part of the operation does grant him 'immunity from committing atrocity at home'. The bench, which was presided over by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and also comprising Justice Vinod Chandran, was hearing an appeal by Baljinder Singh challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order upholding his conviction and sentencing by a trial court. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said it 'goes to show how physically fit you are, and the manner in which alone you could have killed your wife, strangulated your wife.' Justice Bhuyan made the remark as the counsel appearing for Singh said, 'I can only leave with one line, I am a participant in Operation Sindoor. For the past 20 years, I have been a Black Cat commando posted, my lord, in Rashtriya Rifles.' Singh had also filed an application seeking exemption from surrender pending a final decision on this appeal pending before the Supreme Court. Rejecting this, Justice Bhuyan, however, highlighted that the petitioner has been convicted of a serious offence, and that such an exemption is granted only for lighter sentences. 'This is not a case for exemption. It's a gruesome manner, the manner in which you strangled your wife. Exemption is for when the sentence is of 6 months, 3 months, 1 year,' the judge said. Singh's counsel contended that the two witnesses on whose testimony his client was convicted, were related to the deceased. However, the bench refused to grant exemption to Singh from surrendering, but issued a notice on his appeal, and also allowed him two weeks to surrender. An Amritsar court had convicted Singh in the case in July 2004, and sentenced him to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.
